|
Undermining the central pillar of United States President George W Bush's case
for the war on Iraq, the chief US arms inspector has reported that Saddam
Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at the time of last year's
US-led invasion.
In a report of more than 1,000 pages, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq
Survey Group, concluded that Saddam destroyed most of his chemical and
biological weapons after his 1991 Gulf War defeat and that his nuclear
programme had "progressively decayed''.
While sweeping aside the president's chief justification for launching the March
2003 war on Iraq - that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction - the
report said the Iraqi dictator would have sought to rebuild his arsenal.
"Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability - which was essentially
destroyed in 1991 - after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilised,
but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously
existed,'' the report said.
Duelfer, in testimony before a Senate panel on Wednesday, said if there was any
risk posed by Saddam it was years in the future, far from the immediate danger
US officials insisted the Iraqi leader posed in building their case for war.
"As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge
base to restart the programme eventually and ... to sustain the inherent
capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future,''
he said.
Duelfer said that after 15 months of searching he did not expect to find
"militarily significant'' weapons stocks in Iraq.
The inspector said that some small finds had been made of chemical and nerve
agents dating from before 1991. Some tips were also to be followed up.
"Despite these reports and finds, I still do not expect that militarily
significant WMD stocks are cached in Iraq,'' Duelfer told the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
His report - which included information supplied by Saddam to US interrogators -
focused on Iraq's "strategic intent''.
"Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability - in an incremental fashion,
irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks - but
he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare
capabilities.''
The report said the Baghdad regime's main fear was neighbouring Iran, but that
it "had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after
sanctions''.
The 9/11 Commission report into the September 11 attacks has already concluded
that Iraq had no part in the strikes on New York and Washington.
Without mentioning the report, Bush on Wednesday defended his invasion order
insisting there was a "real risk'' that Saddam would give weapons of mass
destruction to terrorists.
"We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those
weapons and one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
"We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long
record of aggression and hatred for America.''
Bush added: "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass
weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks. In the world after
September 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take.''
The president acknowledged "strong concerns'' held by some Americans about Iraq.
"I respect the fact that they take this issue seriously, because it is a
serious matter. I assure them we're in Iraq because I deeply believe it is
necessary and right and critical to the outcome of the war on terror.''
Kerry campaign strategist Mike McCurry said the report presents "a very
significant commentary on the mistaken case for war presented by this
administration''.
"It is very troubling they could have been so wrong when it comes to something
as fundamental as taking the country to war,'' he added.
Senator Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the committee that heard Duelfer's
testimony, called the report "a 180-degree difference from what the [Bush]
administration was saying before the war.
"What you're telling us is that in addition to having no WMD stocks before the
war ... Saddam chose not to have those weapons,'' Levin said.
"The fundamental conclusion of the [Iraq Survey Group] effort means that the
administration's two major arguments for going to war against Iraq were
incorrect,'' Levin said.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard was defiant Thursday about his support for
the war in Iraq despite the report's findings.
"I don't see that this report alters anything,'' Howard said.
"I am not in any way apologetic about the fact that we were involved in a
campaign that removed Saddam Hussein. In dealing with the here and now, the
important challenge is to make sure that Iraq becomes a democratic
country.''
|
